Thomas wrote that if lawmakers believed that it would be a better policy to shield government employees from damages, "Congress is free to do so. The top court rejected the government's reasoning. "For instance, prison officials are charged with accommodating the religious practices of approximately 180,000 federal inmates, while balancing prisoners' needs against the demands of prison safety and security," Francisco wrote.įrancisco also argued that interpreting RFRA to allow for money damages presented a constitutional separation-of-powers problem. The government urged the court to undo the appeals court ruling, arguing that a decision in favor of the Muslim men could unduly burden the ability of federal agencies to function.įormer Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who has since returned to private practice, wrote in a brief that damages "will serve as a powerful incentive for potential plaintiffs to sue federal employees at all levels of decisionmaking, more broadly affecting the government's operations." Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The law itself says that someone whose rights were violated may "obtain appropriate relief against a government."Ī federal district court held that RFRA did not permit such money damages, but the 2nd U.S.
The legal question in the case was whether RFRA allows for individuals whose religious exercise was burdened by the government to sue individual government employees for money damages. 11, 2001, attacks, and according to some reports includes more than 80,000 names. The size of the list has grown dramatically since the Sept. Placement on the secretive no-fly list, which is overseen by the FBI, prevents someone from boarding an aircraft that travels to, from or over the United States. They continued to press for financial damages, however, saying that they had been "prohibited from flying, sometimes when they were headed to visit loved ones or to start a new job, or on their way home from a trip abroad, stranding them overseas." "In each case, the agents relied upon what they assumed would be the irresistible coercion of the No Fly List," he added.Īfter the three men sued, they were eventually told that they were no longer on the list. "Rather than accepting that refusal, the FBI agents persisted - in some instances threatening individual Respondents with deportation and arrest and in other instances offering financial incentives and assistance with family members' immigration to the United States," Kassem wrote. Each of the men initially answered agents' questions truthfully, their attorney Ramzi Kassem wrote in court papers, but "none wanted to serve as an informant on his Muslim community, in part because to do so violated his religious beliefs." The men said they were approached by FBI special agents and pressured to provide information about other Muslims. Tanvir, Algibhah and Shinwari argued at the court that the FBI told them that they could only be removed from the government's no-fly list if they "served as government spies in their religious communities." The court did not take any action on two Republican challenges before it concerning the 2020 election, including Texas' effort to overturn President Donald Trump's loss in four battleground states. All of the cases were decided unanimously. The case was one of four decided on Thursday morning, among the first decisions in the current term, which will end over the summer. Thomas wrote in the brief opinion that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act "permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities." Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest member of the court, did not participate in the case. Personal Loans for 670 Credit Score or Lower Personal Loans for 580 Credit Score or Lower Best Debt Consolidation Loans for Bad Credit
0 kommentar(er)
